Posted by one of my acquaintances that claims to be an ANCAP but also thinks Fucker Carlson has good ideas, and that trans people and poor people are ruining America. Also worships Elon. I hate these people.
LOL ANCAP
Weird how a graph of wealth held by middle+lower class is almost identical to this and a wealth held by top 1% graph shows who owns all these houses now
Whenever I see MAGAts talk about how important family is, it’s hard not to forget that “pro-family” was the euphemism used by anti-gay marriage campaigners ten short years ago. She’s blaming the gays for income inequality.
I don’t want to marry, really don’t want to own a house and only have good relations to people in my family that i really like. And i really like it as it is.
If only we all could be content !
I cant live in apartments due to my loud lifestyle but I can see the appeal. Im not really a city person either, I prefer nature
Show the same graph of billionaires wealth, then again for inflation costs, then one more with the same minimum wage, finally overlap them all… let’s see how that goes! Hmmmm…
Hey! I’m in this graphic. Namely 30 yo and nowhere close to married or a homeowner.
Maybe it’s because all oldies fucked up our economy so much, we can AFFORD house, let alone a damn child, or even a damn car at this rate! Our wages are trash, healthcare for all is abysmal, and taxes are up the ass! Not to mention now… TARIFFS. It’s asinine to think that anyone would wanna bring a child into this garbage US economy!
We threw tea into the ocean when the king tried to tax it but now it’s okay with Americans that we can get taxes of almost 30% of our HARD EARNED income!! What in the absolute fuck?! DRUMPF hasn’t “worked” a day in his life! All he’s proven is failed businesses and shitting his pants! Embarrassing America!
DO FUCKING BETTER! Fucking VOTE, you lazy ass fucking clowns!
I think this is a big issue with the democrat party. We are still gonna get 30% taxed no matter who’s in power. Its bullshit and should be more like 15%. This is why poor red states vote republican because they run on tax breaks (and the people in those states are too dumb to realize its tax breaks only for billionaires, not you)
As a millennial, partly responsible for the big dip around the 2000s:
LOL. GFL.
I think she’s stupid, but just smart enough to know how to point out the damage and apportion that to her belief system of scapegoats including non white, non hetero, etc.
Sounds like the average conservative religious nut. Just smart enough to aim and pull the trigger at the wrong target.
What happened in 1991?
The pressure to compete with the Soviet Union on improving the quality of life vanished.
The consequences of Reganomics and trickle down took hold
LMFAO. Trickle down.
I don’t think it’s physically possible for the wealthy, who got tax breaks from Regan, to spend enough of the money they “earn” every year, for anything to “trickle” anywhere.
The whole thing was always a sham.
The fact that anyone fell for it was incredible.
He was hated by my parents
Horse and sparrow economics. Let’s not pretend that they haven’t been feeding us this shit for over 140 years at this point.
Millennials, they ruined the home owning and marriage market as soon as they were born.
Damn millennials!
As a millennial, on behalf of my generation, I accept the blame and your criticism.
I also couldn’t possibly give any less of a shit. :)
The 30 year olds were born
The 90s
How is anything your party is doing helping to solve the problem bitch?
The problem? You mean you don’t want people unmarried, without sex, and without porn? Because I feel that will teach them to vote right wing!
No sex, no abortions, no fun, no porn, no smoking, no vaping, no weed (still schedule 1 federally)…
And to top it off: the economy is super fucked, and getting worse.
Yep. Let’s go Donny!
Is this what hell really looks like?
EDIT: I would unironically ban cigars. They are such a massive evil on the world.
Oh, I’m not saying what people should do, just what they’ve made it difficult or impossible to do.
Funny enough, my local area requires that you stay so far away from any entrance to a building when smoking that if you’re in any town center, or major city, you basically can only legally smoke/vape in the street. Everywhere else has access doors to buildings frequent enough that you’ll never be far enough from an entrance to use tobacco products legally.
Fortunately for the smokers, unless you’re directly next to, or standing in a doorway, generally nobody gives a shit, so the law is never enforced, making it little more than a placation for the anti-smoking crowd that seems to want to ban all tobacco/nicotine products without exception… Which would just about work if the laws were enforced.
But I use vape products and I see all the drama around that shit and how few fucks retailers give about age verification when selling this shit. A local vape shop was forced to take down a video where they sent an underage looking person who didn’t have ID into vape shops and tobacco retailers to see if they could buy shit, and all the vape shops turned them away. The same cannot be said for other tobacco retailers… Heh. The backlash from the industry was so severe that YouTube cancelled their channel.
But vaping is the problem, right? The less harmful alternative with strictly law abiding boutique shops, needs to be regulated so the minors don’t get to all the fruit flavors!
Then vape products started to be made by tobacco companies and suddenly all the media buzz about it disappeared, and vape products showed up at normal tobacco retailers.
This shit is so fucking transparent.
The system is working as intended. It’s just not working for you.
Those things are addictive, and it is quite evil to get children addicted. They should not have to be responsible for themselves at that age.
Yes. They are addictive. And yes, getting children addicted is bad. And yes, they should not have to be responsible for themselves when they are so young.
I don’t disagree with any of your points.
Fact is: vaping, and even cigarettes, are not, and never were, the problem. No fancy flavouring is to blame here. There are already laws in place that prohibit people under a certain age (varies by jurisdiction), from buying tobacco/nicotine/vape products.
Laws themselves don’t do anything. This is not a problem of seeing forth the rules. The problem is twofold in my opinion:
First, enforcement. There’s already so little oversight of tobacco restrictions. Company’s rarely get checked to see if they’re serving to underaged people. When they do the fine is tiny compared to what they stand to earn by just, ignoring the rules, and selling to anyone who has the cash.
Second, the tobacco industry itself. As far as I can see, the tobacco industry lobbied hard against vaping when it was largely small shops and companies making the vast majority of the products being sold. Almost all of the scrutiny went away when large tobacco companies started buying up the vape companies. Remember juul? Yeah, currently owned by Altria, which was formerly known as Philip Morris. If you’re unfamiliar, they started out as a tobacco brand. Guess what they’re still heavily invested into…
The whole Anti vaping movement, proposed laws, pretty much everything about it, entirely stoked by tobacco companies. At first they just wanted to keep people smoking, but when they couldn’t make vaping go away, they just bought up most of the major vape brands and took it over, which is around the same time the anti vaping thing finally calmed down.
It’s all corruption, all the way down.
The only thing that’s accomplished by imposing further restrictions on vaping is harming law abiding citizens who are looking for an alternative to traditional cigarettes for their nicotine fix. Anything else is just posturing and smoke screen. The laws exist already to prohibit use of these products by minors. If you want to stop youth vaping, all we really need is enforcement of the laws we already have.
Perhaps the congresswoman from Georgia should focus on that and not Jewish space lasers.
Ooh! Someone make a graph of the average price for a home over the same time period, then the federal minimum wage, then do the math on how many hours you have to work to get that much money…
Median price of a home in the USA from Q2 2025: $410,800.
US minimum wage: $7.25
56,662 hours of work (roughly, we’re not taking into account taxes and whatnot)…
Which is approximately 1,416.5 weeks at full time (40 hrs per week)
Which is 27.24 years of work.
Average length of a mortgage is still 25 years. So working full time, at minimum wage, and paying no taxes, and spending zero dollars of your money towards stuff you need in the mean time, like… IDK… Food?
It will take you 2.24 years longer to pay off the house than you have time to pay it off.
The system is working as intended.
It’s kinda funny. I was thinking it would more fair to use the US single median income $40k x 35% dedicated towards housing It’s actually slightly worse $14k vs $15k at minimum wage.
Screwed either way.
The system is working as intended.
It literally can’t be reversed…
Like, that time has passed, literally. Historically this is one of the ways society tries to self correct. Shitty times means less people have kids, less kids means less workers a generation later.
Less workers mean workers have more power, wages go up, housing goes down, and they feel secure and have a “baby boom”. It’s not even unique to humans, other animals and even plants go thru similar cycles with resources.
We’re just cycling really fucking fast these days, and it won’t take many generations for AI to actually be able to replace an average human. We kind of need to fix shit and hold onto it for as long as possible.
I know it always feels like “this is the last fight” but we’re coming dangerously close to it actually being true.
Just import cheap workers from somewhere else.
Reversing a trajectory (a speed and direction) does not require you to change the past. What a bizarre way to read that
Yeah, you’re technically correct, which is the best kind of correct
I should have said:
The damage literally can’t be reversed
Thanks
Hnnnnnnnnnnmnnnnngt
FEWER
Otherwise, spot on.
I’m a firm believer that grammar rules should describe a language, not control it:
This isn’t an example of how modern English is going to the dogs. Less has been used this way for well over a thousand years—nearly as long as there’s been a written English language. But for more than 200 years almost every usage writer and English teacher has declared such use to be wrong. The received rule seems to have originated with the critic Robert Baker, who expressed it not as a law but as a matter of personal preference. Somewhere along the way—it’s not clear how—his preference was generalized and elevated to an absolute, inviolable rule.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/fewer-vs-less
English is a peasant language standardized by Dutch printing press operators who could barely speak English and whose work wasn’t proofed.
If something is completely nonsensical, we can just disregard it.
Makes scents benjamin franklin said its a pore mind that can not think of more than won weigh to spell a word but he didnt say anything about formatting punctuation or grammar to make things more readable
I mean, I slip up, or at least try to write with a little style sometimes, but seeing consistent incorrect usage rubs me the wrong way. It’s hard enough to get clarity in writing, throwing out structure and “rules” probably won’t improve it.
but seeing consistent incorrect usage rubs me the wrong way.
Adjust your timeline bro
The “rule” is incredibly recent.
It’s more logical to say the “rule” has been wrong for 200 years than to say everyone was wrong for over 1,000 years.
If you don’t like consistent incorrect usage…
You’re on the wrong side of this argument
I think you’re mixing up consistently historical use with consistent use in your comment.
Also, chattel slavery was outlawed less than 200 years ago. Are you going to continue to keep slaves? The rule has been in place longer than you or your grandparents have been alive, I don’t think you have much standing on a historical basis here.
I have never come across a situation where the word “less” being used instead of “fewer” led to any kind of confusion. The “rule” is nonsense and doesn’t add to the language.
I’m generally a fan of stricter guidelines to language to prevent it from losing meaning (e.g. if “literally” can mean “figuratively,” we no longer have a word for what “literally” is supposed to mean). But rules for the sake of rules (e.g. don’t end a sentence on a preposition) that don’t add anything to the language is ridiculous. The point of language is to convey information. If the rules do more to get in the way of that communication than help it (like “it’s actually fewer, not less” in the middle of a discussion), then those rules are bad and should be ignored.
Well, I’m sorry my scope for history included greater or less years than your preferred scope, I hope this doesn’t make you think fewer of my point.
Next you’re going to tell me you don’t care about affect/effect, and the dreaded alot.
Also, chattel slavery was outlawed less than 200 years ago.
Well…
First off you’re acting like America is the only country in the world.
Second, by this logic chattel slavery is a very recent abnormality in human history.
by this logic chattel slavery is a very recent abnormality in human history.
So is the English language.
Ooh! Now do “literally” now meaning both “literally” and “figuratively”.
Literally first showed up in the 1500s, and it took about 400 years before it was used ironically.
So yeah, I can get people upset that it’s used as a standin for it’s opposite unintentionally.
But I feel like it’s more sarcastic usually, and the first use of sarcasm was the Illiad. So sarcastically using any word as it’s opposite I consider acceptable.
Wanna do “bad” meaning “good” next?
That would be terrific, yes!
Sure!
When the answer has been staring you in the face for so long that it has resorted to just slapping you in the face, but you’re still not getting it.
